Final answer:
Kant's philosophy asserts that lying is not justifiable as it fails the test of the categorical imperative, both the universal law and humanity formulations. An act must be universalizable and respect the inherent worth of rational beings to be moral. In Kantian ethics, perfect duties, such as honesty, are obligatory for all.
Step-by-step explanation:
Immanuel Kant's ethical philosophy, particularly within his Critique of Practical Reason, portrays a rigorous approach to morality, especially when it comes to the act of lying. According to Kant's categorical imperative, particularly the universal law formulation, an action is moral only if it can be willed to become a universal law without contradiction. Lying fails this test because if everyone were to lie, the very basis of communication and trust would collapse, making the act self-defeating and impossible to will universally.
Moreover, through the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant argues that we must treat humanity, both in ourselves and others, as an end in itself and never merely as a means. When we lie to someone, we use them as a means to an end and deny their ability to make rational decisions based on true information. Thus, lying is deemed as always wrong in Kantian ethics since it fails to respect the inherent value of rational beings.
Within Kant's framework, perfect duties such as telling the truth are obligations that we must follow universally. Applying this to government conduct, although practical circumstances might suggest otherwise, the moral principles Kant proposes do not waver; a good government would align with moral imperatives and eschew deceit. Kant's rigid stance leaves little room for exceptions; resolving conflicts between perfect duties, like never telling a lie versus avoiding harm to someone, remains a profound challenge in Kantian ethics.